S. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 3. 82 of the Court of Shri B. K. Jam, Special Judge, Jabalpur, in Special Case No. 9/80, sentencing the appellant under section 161 I P. C. for one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo R. I. for 3 months; and under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to undergo R. I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. , in default of which he was to suffer 3 months R. I. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE accused-appellant was a Patwari of village. Tilhari on the date of the offence. Halkibai the mother of the complainant Motilal (P. W. 1), owned some lands in village Tilhari just adjoining to the government land. Complainant Motilal wanted the adjoining government land for agricultural purposes. He wanted the helping hand of the Patwari who demanded a bribe in presence of Kodolal (P. W. 3 ). An amount of Rs. 25/- was agreed as bribe Rs. 5/- were paid in advance and the balance amount of Rs. 20/- was paid on 4. 9. 79. Nariman (P. W. 2), Bansgopal (P. W. 6) were the members of the trap-party. After handing over the amount of Rs. 20/-, recovery of the said amount was made in presence of P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 6. The necessary sanction to prosecute the accused was obtained. ( 3 ) THE case of the accused was that Motilal (P. W. 1) had taken a loan of Rs. 20r from the accused Chetram Vs. The State of M. P. about 3 months prior to the occurrence and had been demanding the said amount which was paid to him back on the date of the occurrence. The acceptance of Rs. 20/- is admitted by the accused. The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above. The accused had examined some witnesses in defence. Govind Singh, Naib Tahsildar, Jabalpur, examined as D. W. 3 stated that there was no land fit for allotment in the vicinity. Motilal had already lodged a report complaining of illegal allotment of the government land. He had not filed any application for allotment. The accused had examined some witnesses in defence. Govind Singh, Naib Tahsildar, Jabalpur, examined as D. W. 3 stated that there was no land fit for allotment in the vicinity. Motilal had already lodged a report complaining of illegal allotment of the government land. He had not filed any application for allotment. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that there was no occasion to give any bribe. The story put up by the prosecution is absolutely unreliable The prosecution witnesses gave absolutely different versions. There is no mention regarding the place fixed by the accused for meeting the complainant. The first part of the story is so unnatural that it renders the entire story unnatural and unreliable. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are also unreliable. The defence version was reliable but had wrongly been not considered. ( 5 ) MOTILAL has examined as P. W. 1. He stated that his mother Halkibai had some land in village Tilhari adjoining to the government land. The appellant is the Patwari of the village. This witness alleges to have stated to the appellant that he had been instrumental in allotment to several persons. Since the government land was adjoining his land, the same be allotted to him. The Patwari replied that the number of that land be obtained. What this witness wanted to know; was the number of the said land. The Patwari said that it would require some expenses to be incurred and be demanded Rs. 100/- therefore. The bargain was struck as Rs. 25/- Out of which Rs. 5/ were paid in advance by him to the Patwari. The talk between the two had taken place in between Phuhara to Subhash Talkies on the way. But the money was paid when they had crossed Subhash Talkies. Kodolal was with them from the very beginning. He had assured Kodolal alsothat if he pay some money to him he would give him the number which will enable him to get the land. The Patwari had asked this witness to bring the balance after 8-10 days in the Tehsil Court premises. He went to Tehsil Court after about 8-10 days where he met the Patwari. The witness had met Bansgopal, resident of Kamania Gate, Jabalpur, the third or fourth -day after handing over Rs. 5/- as stated above and narrated the entire story to him. He went to Tehsil Court after about 8-10 days where he met the Patwari. The witness had met Bansgopal, resident of Kamania Gate, Jabalpur, the third or fourth -day after handing over Rs. 5/- as stated above and narrated the entire story to him. Bansgopal advised him to file a complaint against the Patwari in the office near the Commissioners residence. He met Harbans Singh in the office and narrated the entire story to him. Bansgopal drafted the application which was read to him and was signed by him. One engineer was available in the office who was made to read the application. The trap was thereafter laid and the amount of Rs. 20h was paid to the appellant and subsequently the same amount was seized from his possession. He did not talk to Patwari when he met him on the date of incident prior to going to the office Of the Commissioner. At the time of receiving the money the Patwari had told him give the money and take the number. After pocketing the money, the Patwari told him that he was going to the canteen and shall give the copy after returning therefrom. He was caught on the gate of the canteen by Hanumat Singh and others. The talk about allotment of the land was about 15 days prior to the date when an advance of Rs. 5/- was given to the Patwari. There was no one to hear the talks between them on the occasion. This witness met Kodolal accidentally near Phubara. He is a labourer. He does not remember as to when to went to Bansgopal for the first time for discussing the scheme of getting the Patwari trapped. But on the third or fourth day, after handing over Rs. 5/- he lodged the complaint and got the Patwari trapped. Nokhelal was following the Patwari when the amount of Rs. 20/- was handed over to him. Nokhelal also resides in the village of the witness. The Patwari bad assured to get about 3 acres of land allotted to the witness. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that there was no land belonging to this witness in the village and further that he had not applied for allotment of the land. Nokhelal also resides in the village of the witness. The Patwari bad assured to get about 3 acres of land allotted to the witness. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that there was no land belonging to this witness in the village and further that he had not applied for allotment of the land. The said amount was paid only for getting the Khasra number of the government land known to this witness which is said to be a process for allotment of land. The first part of the story that the witness met the appellant accidently near the Phuhara and on way they discussed the entire matter in presence of Kodolal and advanced Ks. 5/- toward the bribe amount, does not appear reasonable and natural. Kodolal is also a chance witness. ( 6 ) KODOLAL has been examined as P. W. 3. He stated that he and Motilal (P. W. 1) were going back to their village via Subhash Talkies. They met the appellant on the way. Motilal told the Patwari as to why he was harassing him and why he does not give him the khasra number of the land adjoining his land. The Patwari then told him that he will have to spent some money. On enquiry Patwari informed that about Rs. 100/- would be required. Then he came down to Rs. 50/- and finally to Rs. 25/- and said that out of the said amount he may give him whatsoever he had. Thereupon, Motilal gave Rs. 5/- to him. The Patwari then told him that there would be a meeting ,on the fourth day in the school near Subhash Talkies where he should come and pay him the balance amount of Rs. 20/ -. Comparing this statement of P. W. 3 with P. W. 1, it is noticed that the entire version as alleged by Motilal is quite different from the version of this witness. Apart from this, this witness states in cross-examination that both of them i. e. P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 had come together from thevillage at about 2. 00 p. m. and they were together through out upto 3-00 p. m. They both were riding in one cycle. The Patwari met them near Subhash Talkies. They both got down and then the aforesaid talk took place. 00 p. m. and they were together through out upto 3-00 p. m. They both were riding in one cycle. The Patwari met them near Subhash Talkies. They both got down and then the aforesaid talk took place. They all were standing on the spot where the Patwari had met while standing in a side away from the road. He admits that he had given an application complaining of the encroachment made by the Naidu Babu and requesting the removal of the encroachment. He does not remember if the said application was given prior to handing over R. I. 5/- to the Patwari on that occasion. ( 7 ) THUS, the first part of the story about giving Rs. 5/- in advance of the bribe to the Patwari becomes doubtful. If the first link of the story is not proved beyond reasonable double, the entire story regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 25/- as a consequence thereof giving a bribe of Rs. 20/-, becomes doubtful. ( 8 ) NOKHELAL has been examined as P. W. 4. According to him he had given Rs. 210/- to the Patwari towards takabi loans for which no receipt was passed to him. Patwari had asked him to come to the tehsil court on fourth, as some meeting was to take place in the tehsil court. Motilal met him in the court premises. They both met the Patwari under a tree near the tehsil gate. Motilal asked the Patwari to give the number. The Patwari enquired that if he had brought the money. Motilal handed over the amount to him, which he put in the pocket of his pent and told him that after coming back from the canteen, he would give the number. He was caught near the tehsil gate about 25-30 steps ahead and was taken to the canteen. This witness was informed by Motilal that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid to the Patwari for giving the number. This witness did not know as to for what purpose Rs. 20/- were paid to the Patwari by Motilal. It was only on the information received from Motilal that he learnt that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid for that purpose. Ex. B-I was the complaint made to the Naib Tahsildar regarding the encroachment of the Government land over which this witness admitted to have signed. 20/- were paid to the Patwari by Motilal. It was only on the information received from Motilal that he learnt that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid for that purpose. Ex. B-I was the complaint made to the Naib Tahsildar regarding the encroachment of the Government land over which this witness admitted to have signed. ( 9 ) BANSGOPAL has been examined as P. W. 6. He states that he had good relations with Motilal and his father. They were on visiting terms. On 2. 4. 79 Motilal informed him that the Patwari of the village is getting some land allotted to him. He had promised to give some papers. He had given Rs. 5/- to Patwari and some more money would be given by him in installments. This witness further states that he told Motilal that he would see the Patwari and request him to take less amount. On 4. 9. 79 Motilal again came to him. He further stated that Motilal had not come on third but had come few days prior to third day of September. Motilal had told him on that day that the Patwari wants Rs. 100/- for the work out. of which Rs. 5/- had been paid by him. It was Motilal who asked this witness to lodge a report against the Patwari. They met Hanumatsingh in the office by the side of the Commissioners office and told Hanumatsingh that the Patwari wants Rs. 100/- as bribe. A amount of Rs. 5/- had already been paid, Rs. 20/- were payable on that day out of the said amount. Hanumatsingh asked him to give a complaint in writing. This witness drafted the application which was signed by Motilal. After hearing the contents, the trap team went to the tehsil office. An amount of Rs. 20/- was handed over to the appellant and be was trapped. The said amount of Rs. 20/was recovered from his possession. Motilal had told him earlier that he was called by the Patwari in the tahsil office forobtaining some copy. The Patwari had told Motilal to wait till 5-00 p. m. when he would give copy to him. On fourth Motilal had informed that the Patwari is not agreeable to reduce the amount of bribe from Rs. 100/ -. He was also standing near the Patwari at a distance of about 3 paces when the amount was given. The Patwari had told Motilal to wait till 5-00 p. m. when he would give copy to him. On fourth Motilal had informed that the Patwari is not agreeable to reduce the amount of bribe from Rs. 100/ -. He was also standing near the Patwari at a distance of about 3 paces when the amount was given. The gist of the talk, as narrated by this witness, is that Motilal demanded the papers, the appellant said to wait till 5-00 p. m. and this was all the talk between them. He has denied the suggestion that he had given the threat to the Patwari in case he did not agree to do the work according to the suggestion of this witness. He also denied the suggestion that he bas falsely implicated the appellant. ( 10 ) HANUMATSINGH has been examined as P. W. 8. He states that as to how the trap was laid and how the alleged bribe money was recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is not disputed before the possession of the appellant. It is not disputed before me that the said money was recovered from the possession of the appellant. He admits that khasra Nos. 210, 211, 212, 213 and 217/1 were lands which were allotable but they were allotted to different persons even prior to the date of trap. The other land bearing khasra Nos. 230, 233, 247, 247/a, 257/1, 258, 259/1 and 277 were the lands recovered as grass, hillock, river and land unsuitable for cultivation which were not allotted to anyone. He does not know if Govindsingh, Naib Tahsildar, was dealing with the allotment of land in that village. He has denied the suggestion that the appellant told him immediately after being caught that it was his money given on loan to Motilal which he returned to him. ( 11 ) IN examination the appellant had stated that he had not accepted any bribe but it was his money which was given to Motilal on loan and the same was returned to him on that day. ( 12 ) THE appellant has examined Deepchand as D. W. 1 who stated that Rs. 20/were given on loan by the appellant to Motilal in his presence. Dhooplal has been examined as D. W. 2 who has also deposed that in his presence Rs. 20/- were given to Motilal by the appellant. ( 12 ) THE appellant has examined Deepchand as D. W. 1 who stated that Rs. 20/were given on loan by the appellant to Motilal in his presence. Dhooplal has been examined as D. W. 2 who has also deposed that in his presence Rs. 20/- were given to Motilal by the appellant. Govindsingh, Addi. Naib Tahsildar, (D. W. 3) has stated that there was no land in the village which could have been allotted to the appellant. Sonelal (D. W. 4) is the Revenue Inspector, who stated that the appellant was keeping his records in the shop of a barber of Gorabazar and used to sit in that shop. ( 13 ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, it is clear that the prosecution story is quite unnatural and does not establish that the amount given by Motilal to the appellant was a bribe beyond reasonable doubt. It is very doubtful that Motilal would give bribe only for obtaining the khasra number of government land. The discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses make the story still more doubtful. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is probable that the appellant would have lend Rs. 20/- to Motilal which he returned that day to him and gave a shape that the amount was given as a bribe to him. ( 14 ) IN these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and consequence sentences are set aside. Appeal allowed. .